Posted on 05/04/2025 6:11:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The big, beautiful tax bill winding its way through the House and Senate just got a lot better.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio just posted the draft text of its portion of the bill yesterday and it’s a banger.
They would amend the Congressional Review Act (which allows Congress to rescind costly regulatory agency regs) to correct its biggest design flaw. Even if the House and Senate vote to overturn a regulation, the president who issued the regulation can use his veto to save his own rules (except when the presidency has just changed hands). This delegates way too much law making authority to the Executive Branch.
Under the new process proposed by Jordan, any regulation that has a budgetary effect would require affirmative majority approval by the House and Senate to take effect.
This would restore to Congress its role under the Constitution of deciding on issues related to the cost of government, which regulations absolutely are. As we reported last week, Heritage research shows that a regulatory freeze would reduce the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
This would prevent the regulatory pendulum from swinging wildly with each presidential election and stop another unchecked regulatory spree like the ones we had under Obama and Biden in the next left-wing administration.
Kudos to Chairman Jordan.
“increases revenue”
imposes an unusual burden on a private business or has a significant financial impact
Any regulation issue activity over any 12-month period that would increase the costs or decrease the revenue of a federal activity, a federal or private project, or a private business by more than 1%, excluding correcting for CPI inflation, shall be deemed to have a significant financial impact
a burden that is not already imposed by at least two major visa exempt countries shall be deemed unusual
Another possibility is to allow a major leader of each party in both the Senate and the House to put a hold on a regulation.
Be aware that that might cause difficulties for Trump.
I’m putting that out for your thinking only at this time.
It’s not clear what that is saying. The interpretation suggests it eliminates the Filibuster.
Non starter if so.
This would give congress control over Trump’s tariffs. Not good.
It is a good start.
The Dems campaigned on eliminating the filubuster. I would like to have that conversation to see their heads explode with more hypocrisy.
You know they’ll be against it now!!
The federal deficit this year is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS. Savings of $1 trillion over ten years is only $0.1 trillion per year. In other words, only 5% of this year's deficit.
Nibbling at the edges like this will not fix the problem.
This swings too much power (and no doubt spending) to the legislature.
The filibuster is conservative. It is an obstacle to passing laws. Conservatism wants less government intrusion in life. So obstacles to passing laws are conservative.
It’s always in comfortable to see talk and conservative venues asking to Nuke the filibuster. It’s ideologically wrong to do so, and it’s the only reason that we don’t have onerous gun control laws. Democratic senators opposed killing the filibuster when it was proposed by other Democratic senators. Only because of that do we not have a huge array of undesirable laws to face.
It always comes down to that. Someday the other party will be in power and we will be helpless and only the filibuster will save us. They’re saying that now.
Still waiting on the removal of income taxes from SS.
I’m still working and plan to work for a couple more years. I’ll be forced to collect SS next year.
No taxtion on SS is a huge financial gain for me.
Horrible idea, this is a trap to control Trump and maybe even the tariffs. Congress is a disaster
Uh No you won’t be forced to take SS at age 70. No one is forced to tsje SS. What a silly thing to say.
You can wait past 70 to start collecting SS. Your amount be be whatever it is at 70
Your decision. The Gov’t will not “force” you
Require a 3/4 vote in both houses to raise taxes or fees or anything that would cause an increase in price to taxpayers.
My bad choice of words.
There’s no reason to not take it at 70.
Im pretty sure the tax penalty is offset by the net amount of income I’ll get from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.